General MFC Discussion 2.0

[Salc0]

This board had its **** moments last year too, but I agree with you essentially that if we were a better football team everything would be better.

Maybe the pricks are due for a random and very surprising win tomorrow? That would be great. Particularly for me since we always go to QB as guest of my partner’s brother (MCC member) and I’m getting tired of his being understanding and polite to me after the last few results

The pity that comes being a Melbourne supporter. It would be great to not have that for a couple of years.

 

[Proper Gander]

The pity that comes being a Melbourne supporter. It would be great to not have that for a couple of years.

If it was in me to have a break, I would. You too I suspect. It would be so awesome to let go and even have a chance of enjoying a premiership like a regular footy supporter.

Ah well... we just stick it out and deal with original sin. One day Norm Smith will get tired of It? I hope he suddenly does tomorrow.

 

[Cannon82]

Ultimately I don't think I am misunderstanding him, my point is that he is deliberately vague on some points. I also disagree with him openly on others. I am sure he has some viewpoints I agree with aswell. I am happy to discuss on the merit of his viewpoints, but you aren't familiar with them so there isn't much point getting into the discussion further.

Perhaps have a conversation with yourself then because you posted earlier about not being able to understand the points he was making.

That's totally exactly the same point I was making! /s I am sure there is some clever debating term for the tactic you have used here to extrapolate a pretty ridiculous point from the argument I made

Again with the literal interpretation of things. Lets' try this instead - many sexists support Feminism. We should demand Feminists explain why so many sexists support Feminism. I'm not saying Femnism is sexist, but a lot of sexists support Feminism. Have you been demanding explanations of Feminists and popular Feminist figures? I'm going to guess not.

Hooray! Something you are actually willing to discuss about, rather than just dismissing and dodging.

Unfortunately, the wage gap is a very real thing that is not at all debunked.

I'm not sure what the actual dollar for dollar gap is in gender pay. According to this article they theorise it to be around 90 cents on the dollar for HOURLY wage while controlling for other factors.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122416683393

The above article also provides some further references for different areas, but the below study for europe highlights bigger gaps at the top and bottom of the salaries.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979390706000201?casa_token=7WuXXvVj7mYAAAAA:hw4rQisCmuZYfHqs-CuUTs8wqaS0zyxzcNroZ6MDV609vNTokbWwsH-vTvotPswGXuhcnqPPO78

"Not at all debunked", and yet you can't provide evidence of discrimination. The humorous thing I recall a company claim they were going to give women pay rises to combat the gender pay gap. It was some "think tank" in England... poetically oxymoronic to state such a thing in public, given that its an admission of either underpaying women previously or discriminating against men now. Sadly I can't find a link to the article.

I'm not particularly inclined to wade through a river of academic s**t that you'd likely put in front of me, but I very briefly humoured you and your links. I downloaded one PDF and started reading, got as far as this part in the abstract and stopped:

Gender pay gaps likely persist in Western societies because both men and women consider somewhat lower earnings for female employees than for otherwise similar male employees to be fair. Two different theoretical approaches explain “legitimate” wage gaps: same-gender referent theory and reward expectations theory. The first approach states that women compare their lower earnings primarily with that of other underpaid women; the second approach argues that both men and women value gender as a status variable that yields lower expectations about how much each gender should be paid for otherwise equal work.

The "study" you've provided starts off with an unproven assumption and proceeds to build on that twig as if it were the most solid foundation imaginable. Like you, it assumes women are discriminated against and then proceeds onward into the abyss like that is a given fact that requires no proof or evidence. What a rubbish attempt at proving the wage gap. Let me help you out here - Australian Bureau of Statistics data or don't bother. Why don't you just have an expert from Big Tobacco lecture me on the benefits of smoking two packs a week?

Regardless there is an amount that can't be explained by anything other than discrimination. Even if you ignore that percentage that is most likely due to discrimination, it kind of annoys me when people claim the wage gap doesn't exist due to things like career choices or looking after children (as a couple of specific examples).

No, again, you're making assumptions. Men do more valuable work. That is literally what the measured statistic indicates. Where is the discrimination? You are making the assumption that men and women do the same work.

First, why have we as a society decided that male dominated professions are worth more than female dominated ones?

It's called economics. Supply and demand and scarcity of skills.

Second, why do we put so little value in taking care of our family and why is it still the primary responsibility of women? Some might claim that the responsibility falls to mothers more often due to pregnancy. But the amount of time needed off for the actual pregnancy and giving birth is decreasing with increased medical resources. I had a friend stay at work until the week before giving birth. It would be great to ensure that paternity leave was given at the same rate of maternity leave so that males have more of an opportunity to raise children. I also suspect that moms stay at home for care even when adopting. I had a quick look but couldn't find anything to support my suspicions so am open to changing that view if there is evidence I missed. The only thing I could find was a study looking at time taken off by men and women in Australian workplaces

Do people put "little value" in taking care of their family? As for it being the primary responsibility of women, that's partly due to nature and also partly due to women's choice. A lot of women want to take care of their kids and be a SAHM.

All of the above is also only concerning taking care of our own children. Why do women also disproportionately take time off to look after other family members? Personally, I think we need to drastically re-evaluate the shared role of men in taking care of family.

Because women predominantly take on carer's roles. Go look up the statistics on career demographic splits in Scandinavian countries (the most "equal and liberated" countries in the world) versus the likes of Pakistan, UAE, etc. There are a higher proportion of women in STEM fields in Pakistan than there are in Sweden. Pakistan must be a bastion of modern gender equality, amirite? There's a documentary on it on Youtube, if you're happy to waste half an hour.

At the end of the day, the gender pay gap is a complex issue, but to wave it off as not existing is not valid based on any of the current evidence

Your evidence is faulty. The gender pay gap is easy to wave off because no one has yet provided any evidence of systematic discrimination. Where are the huge number of lawsuits that should be taking place if even just a tiny fraction of these discriminatory cases came to light? The lawyers would be all over this because it would be massive business.

Sorry, but what? are you seriously claiming that the only group of people disadvantaged in the world are poor people? I agree they are a disadvantaged group, and I am all for helping them where possible. But, there are a number of other groups that are put at a disadvantage due to factors such as race, gender, and sexual orientation (as some examples). I don't want to discriminate against anyone, I want to level the playing field.

Oooo, steady on there chief! Are you suggesting people of certain racial demographics or genders are inherently disadvantaged and/or different? Those sound like some bigoted views you're about to delve into. Everyone is equal, don't you know. I'm sure there are no inherent differences between different demographics or surely it would be perfectly reasonable to discriminate along those lines!

So no. Poor people are disadvantaged and disabled / sick people are disadvantaged, but people of certain races, genders, sexes, sexual orientations, etc are absolutely not inherently disadvantaged. Was Barack Obama disadvantaged? Is Julia Gillard a poor disadvantaged woman? Or are they at the pointy end of what is clearly a spectrum across whatever chosen demographic you happen to pigeonhole?

It seems like you want to police what private companies can and can't do. I would think they have a right to choose what viewpoints they are happy expressing, even if that is just a money making exercise.

Indeed it is. Get woke, go broke, as the saying goes. Working a treat for Proctor and Gamble.

I'm actually pretty socially anxious and only signed up after a couple of years visiting the site so I didn't have to keep scrolling through the posts I had already read. I enjoy coming here to read about people's thoughts on how the Dees are going and celebrating in the all to rare wins. However, there has been a number of posts (by a number of posters) over the years that have annoyed me and have almost brought me out of lurking previously. I actually had you on ignore for a long time, but then some threads stopped making sense due to the number of interactions you have with other posters. I suppose in this case the climate posts got me all riled up and wanting to contribute to the discussion. I imagine i will run out of energy fairly shortly, so if you keep up the posting you will most likely 'win' the discussion due to my non-responding. Not sure how much more stamina I have.

It's kind of ridiculous to call my views crackpot though, just because you don't agree with them

Yes, I do recall your moniker from a previous argument however long ago. I get into a few tit for tats so your particular stylings of pestering must have made an impression back then. If its any consolation, you've succeeded in boring my **** off as well. Put me back on ignore and I'll do you the same courtesy.

 

[blitznu]

So hows the Dees going

 

[Tulip]

I'm sure its easy enough to go along with discrimination against certain people if you've convinced yourself they deserve it.

I don't agree with you, but you respond eloquently for the most part. Why the doublespeak when Toump brings up a valid point? The name calling is a fault on both sides.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

You’re all aware that the cricket and French Open final were on while you were wasting your time on this argument, right?

 

[Cannon82]

You’re all aware that the cricket and French Open final were on while you were wasting your time on this argument, right?

Had the cricket on in the background and was typing up my blah blah between deliveries. Meh to tennis. Actually, meh to cricket too but it was Sunday night.

 

[Cannon82]

I don't agree with you, but you respond eloquently for the most part. Why the doublespeak when Toump brings up a valid point? The name calling is a fault on both sides.

Doublespeak? Pretty straightforward statement. I wasn't impressed with the "I don't like what this guy is saying so I'm okay with them being treated unfairly" point, so I responded to that. Didn't delve into the name-calling.

Anyone slightly to the right of communism gets labeled as "on the right" by leftists. I'd imagine you probably think I'm a right winger even though I detest politics and the wackjobs on both sides of the divide simply because I debate the points that people of your persuasion tend to make. Its only socially unacceptable to be a right-wing nut job, though. How many people are on this forum saying we should boot foreigners out of the country, that women need to get back in the kitchen, we should conquer New Zealand and steal their fjords, etc. People typically don't go around declaring their extreme right wing views (and I live in regional QLD) for the hell of it, but the *ers on the left are like door-to-door Mormons when it comes to spreading their views, and then they get offended when people disagree with them because they believe they're On The Right Side of History.

There are very clearly double standards in place when it comes to tolerance for and of certain positions. Look at how Louis CK's career took a hit for asking to jerk off in front of women whereas Amy Schumer admits to raping a guy and no one cares. She's also terminally unfunny, which somehow doesn't matter either. The #metoo witch hunts typify the mob justice mentality popular with SJWs, and the cases of people like James Damore losing their job over a carefully considered essay show the lack of tolerance for opposition to their views. In terms of things both sides do, can anyone share any comparable mob justice witch hunts the right-wingers have carried out recently? Has anyone lost their job for sharing their mad leftist views? What / whom are people allowed to publicly criticize in society nowadays? You want to point at the opposing side of the debate and claim both sides are doing this and that, but from where I'm standing, the dangerous people are only on one side.

Now pardon me, I have to go to work.

 

[Tempy Tiger]

Doublespeak? Pretty straightforward statement. I wasn't impressed with the "I don't like what this guy is saying so I'm okay with them being treated unfairly" point, so I responded to that. Didn't delve into the name-calling.

Anyone slightly to the right of communism gets labeled as "on the right" by leftists. I'd imagine you probably think I'm a right winger even though I detest politics and the wackjobs on both sides of the divide simply because I debate the points that people of your persuasion tend to make. Its only socially unacceptable to be a right-wing nut job, though. How many people are on this forum saying we should boot foreigners out of the country, that women need to get back in the kitchen, we should conquer New Zealand and steal their fjords, etc. People typically don't go around declaring their extreme right wing views (and I live in regional QLD) for the hell of it, but the ******s on the left are like door-to-door Mormons when it comes to spreading their views, and then they get offended when people disagree with them because they believe they're On The Right Side of History.

There are very clearly double standards in place when it comes to tolerance for and of certain positions. Look at how Louis CK's career took a hit for asking to jerk off in front of women whereas Amy Schumer admits to raping a guy and no one cares. She's also terminally unfunny, which somehow doesn't matter either. The #metoo witch hunts typify the mob justice mentality popular with SJWs, and the cases of people like James Damore losing their job over a carefully considered essay show the lack of tolerance for opposition to their views. In terms of things both sides do, can anyone share any comparable mob justice witch hunts the right-wingers have carried out recently? Has anyone lost their job for sharing their mad leftist views? What / whom are people allowed to publicly criticize in society nowadays? You want to point at the opposing side of the debate and claim both sides are doing this and that, but from where I'm standing, the dangerous people are only on one side.

Now pardon me, I have to go to work.

Thank * that’s over.

 

[Topkent]

Are you campaigners typing that on a keyboard or on ya phones. That's a fair effort mashing ya phone.

 

[Tempy Tiger]

Are you campaigners typing that on a keyboard or on ya phones. That's a fair effort mashing ya phone.

This whole thread should’ve closed with TL DR.

 

[Salc0]

Perhaps have a conversation with yourself then because you posted earlier about not being able to understand the points he was making.



Again with the literal interpretation of things. Lets' try this instead - many sexists support Feminism. We should demand Feminists explain why so many sexists support Feminism. I'm not saying Femnism is sexist, but a lot of sexists support Feminism. Have you been demanding explanations of Feminists and popular Feminist figures? I'm going to guess not.

Sorry if you didn't want me to actually interpret the words you typed out. Where is the evidence that many sexists support Feminism? There are certainly some sexist arguments that come from Feminists and it is most certainly worth demanding explanations about those sexist arguments. It seems you guessed wrong again.

"Not at all debunked", and yet you can't provide evidence of discrimination. The humorous thing I recall a company claim they were going to give women pay rises to combat the gender pay gap. It was some "think tank" in England... poetically oxymoronic to state such a thing in public, given that its an admission of either underpaying women previously or discriminating against men now. Sadly I can't find a link to the article.

I'm not particularly inclined to wade through a river of academic **** that you'd likely put in front of me, but I very briefly humoured you and your links. I downloaded one PDF and started reading, got as far as this part in the abstract and stopped:


The "study" you've provided starts off with an unproven assumption and proceeds to build on that twig as if it were the most solid foundation imaginable. Like you, it assumes women are discriminated against and then proceeds onward into the abyss like that is a given fact that requires no proof or evidence. What a rubbish attempt at proving the wage gap. Let me help you out here - Australian Bureau of Statistics data or don't bother. Why don't you just have an expert from Big Tobacco lecture me on the benefits of smoking two packs a week?



No, again, you're making assumptions. Men do more valuable work. That is literally what the measured statistic indicates. Where is the discrimination? You are making the assumption that men and women do the same work.

It seems you don't understand how science works. It's called a theory and they are derived from lots and lots of previous research findings. Using a theory as the backbone for a research project is a key component of the scientific method. By using a theory, you can generate hypothesis about what you expect to happen in the research you are running. It is actually a lot easier to find contradictory evidence for the theory, making you reshape it or scrap it altogether. The fact that they found evidence to support the theory is definitely a positive (as in they found something, not as in good) result. You want to dismiss the articles because they are literally following good scientific practice, which I find ridiculous. There certainly are some issues with the peer review process in academia. I am actually a big fan of the push towards preregistered research, where publications are approved based on the introduction and method they propose before getting any results. It would increase the amount of negative findings that would be published. However, it is the best system we currently have for disseminating new and growing knowledge, and it is certainly better than some government department that does not have any form of peer review process of their research.

Regardless, here you go:

https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/MF/6306.0

Report from 2018 on Earnings and Hours. It unfortunately doesn't control for other factors or investigate the predictors of earnings like the other papers that I provided that you refuse to even read. But it does show that on average (looking at full time only) Males earn $1,810.90 per week, while Females earn $1,515.60 per week. Apparently, you are only interested in Descriptive statistics, rather than looking for the root cause of phenomena, so it appears the Males are just $300 more valuable per week /s

It's called economics. Supply and demand and scarcity of skills.

Fair enough to a point I suppose. But I do question that when you have jobs like civil engineers, who seem to be a dime a dozen, earning more than registered nurses, who always seem to be in demand.

Do people put "little value" in taking care of their family? As for it being the primary responsibility of women, that's partly due to nature and also partly due to women's choice. A lot of women want to take care of their kids and be a SAHM.

Because women predominantly take on carer's roles. Go look up the statistics on career demographic splits in Scandinavian countries (the most "equal and liberated" countries in the world) versus the likes of Pakistan, UAE, etc. There are a higher proportion of women in STEM fields in Pakistan than there are in Sweden. Pakistan must be a bastion of modern gender equality, amirite? There's a documentary on it on Youtube, if you're happy to waste half an hour.

Your evidence is faulty. The gender pay gap is easy to wave off because no one has yet provided any evidence of systematic discrimination. Where are the huge number of lawsuits that should be taking place if even just a tiny fraction of these discriminatory cases came to light? The lawyers would be all over this because it would be massive business.

I suppose it is easy to wave off if you completely ignore all the evidence to the contrary, which you seem intent on doing.

Oooo, steady on there chief! Are you suggesting people of certain racial demographics or genders are inherently disadvantaged and/or different? Those sound like some bigoted views you're about to delve into. Everyone is equal, don't you know. I'm sure there are no inherent differences between different demographics or surely it would be perfectly reasonable to discriminate along those lines!

So no. Poor people are disadvantaged and disabled / sick people are disadvantaged, but people of certain races, genders, sexes, sexual orientations, etc are absolutely not inherently disadvantaged. Was Barack Obama disadvantaged? Is Julia Gillard a poor disadvantaged woman? Or are they at the pointy end of what is clearly a spectrum across whatever chosen demographic you happen to pigeonhole?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Our current societal framework is set up to advantage certain groups (specifically straight white males) over other groups. Yes, Barack Obama was disadvantaged and rose up anyway. So was Julia Gilliard, who also rose up through it. If those groups were not disadvantaged how do you explain the over-representation of white males as heads of state and in the executive suite. Are white males again just inherently better? I certainly don't think so.

Indeed it is. Get woke, go broke, as the saying goes. Working a treat for Proctor and Gamble.

If you are not already, you should get a job as a consultant. Your insight is amazing to behold.

Yes, I do recall your moniker from a previous argument however long ago. I get into a few tit for tats so your particular stylings of pestering must have made an impression back then. If its any consolation, you've succeeded in boring my **** off as well. Put me back on ignore and I'll do you the same courtesy.

Feel free to ignore the issues in the world. It most likely won't negatively impact you anyway. You claimed a while ago to be open minded to having your viewpoint changed on things, but all you have done is deflect and ignore arguments. To the point that you completely ignore empirical research. Congratulations you are the very definition of ignorant.

 

[Salc0]

Are you campaigners typing that on a keyboard or on ya phones. That's a fair effort mashing ya phone.

Computer, it would take me forever to type that out on my phone

 

[Salc0]

Doublespeak? Pretty straightforward statement. I wasn't impressed with the "I don't like what this guy is saying so I'm okay with them being treated unfairly" point, so I responded to that. Didn't delve into the name-calling.

Anyone slightly to the right of communism gets labeled as "on the right" by leftists. I'd imagine you probably think I'm a right winger even though I detest politics and the wackjobs on both sides of the divide simply because I debate the points that people of your persuasion tend to make. Its only socially unacceptable to be a right-wing nut job, though. How many people are on this forum saying we should boot foreigners out of the country, that women need to get back in the kitchen, we should conquer New Zealand and steal their fjords, etc. People typically don't go around declaring their extreme right wing views (and I live in regional QLD) for the hell of it, but the ******s on the left are like door-to-door Mormons when it comes to spreading their views, and then they get offended when people disagree with them because they believe they're On The Right Side of History.

There are very clearly double standards in place when it comes to tolerance for and of certain positions. Look at how Louis CK's career took a hit for asking to jerk off in front of women whereas Amy Schumer admits to raping a guy and no one cares. She's also terminally unfunny, which somehow doesn't matter either. The #metoo witch hunts typify the mob justice mentality popular with SJWs, and the cases of people like James Damore losing their job over a carefully considered essay show the lack of tolerance for opposition to their views. In terms of things both sides do, can anyone share any comparable mob justice witch hunts the right-wingers have carried out recently? Has anyone lost their job for sharing their mad leftist views? What / whom are people allowed to publicly criticize in society nowadays? You want to point at the opposing side of the debate and claim both sides are doing this and that, but from where I'm standing, the dangerous people are only on one side.

Now pardon me, I have to go to work.

This whole back and forth began because people were posting right wing arguments on a football forum. So there you go, one clear example of the right trying to sell themselves. Not necessarily extreme right wing views, but they were right of centre. You seem intent on letting people freely express themselves and behave however they want, so I would expect you are some kind of anarchist.

Louis CK asked permission and then masturbated anyway before he got an answer. And all he suffered for it was a bit of a loss in marketability. His new special last year was actually fairly profitable for him, now that he has fully embraced a right wing audience.

I agree the Amy Schumer s**t is pretty disgusting, but now you are saying you have to right to tell people what they find funny?

Can't comment on the James Damore essay as I haven't heard about it. But if it is as harmless as you say that seems excessive.

 

[dee_mac]

Any danger you all head over to the science and politics boards?

 

[Salc0]

Any danger you all head over to the science and politics boards?

Fair call, I've had my say and the mods have been very patient with me so far. I'll drop it and stop annoying people.

 

[Demon 16]

 

[Cannon82]

Thank **** that’s over.

You've been a broken shell of a man since Jake the Snake left the club. Seek help.

 

[PerfectFooty]

You've been a broken shell of a man since Jake the Snake left the club. Seek help.

*Jake the muss

 

[Tempy Tiger]

You've been a broken shell of a man since Jake the Snake left the club. Seek help.

I wont deny it.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

So hows the Dees going

s**t, as ******* usual! Why bother bringing those useless campaigners up?

 

[blitznu]

Make sure ya get ya melbourne cartons of piss from Neitzs mob brewmanity just ordered 2 cartons.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Make sure ya get ya melbourne cartons of piss from Neitzs mob brewmanity just ordered 2 cartons.

$99 + shipping for a slab is way too steep

 

[blitznu]

$99 + shipping for a slab is way too steep

Maybe for you ya tight fisted campaigner. i dont even drink beer and still getting 2 plus the other fruity bullshit 1 haha

 

[Dancing Potato]

Maybe for you ya tight fisted campaigner. i dont even drink beer and still getting 2 plus the other fruity ******** 1 haha

Yeah, it's pretty pricey but I'm still getting one.

$50 for the Tango & Splash slab is a good price and it's a damn awesome beer so got that also. Plus it's for a good cause